I don't see any problem at all with google creating applications like this. They are apart of the community too just like everyone else and they intend to use the platform they have created on equal grounds as anyone else. Why would they create a platform for free and then not use it for their services, and new services? Apple is not in the same kind of business as google. Google is known for having lots of projects that they are developing and testing. As long as they don't use some kind of private closed API to do stuff i have nothing to complain about.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: > As I said "I fully agree that Apple don't allow apps which compete with > their existing products, and that isn't good". iTunes is an existing product > that had podcast features before the iPhone existed. Blocking competition is > not good. I don't agree with that policy. But that isn't the point I'm > putting across here. > > The 5 products I listed were from a quick search, there may be many more > out there or in development, I just wanted to show that Google is entering a > field already well served by the community. > > OI Safe is the one that sprang to mind because secrets is pretty much > where it was a couple of months, imho OI Safe is better than secrets at the > moment because it has more features, but if secrets is backed by Google then > it's only a matter of time before that lead erodes and just being associated > with Google will get secrets more public exposure because it's trading off > the Google brand (OI safe is an open source free product, and although > secrets looks the same Google is paying the for the development time on > secrets whereas OI safe is written by volunteers in their unpaid spare > time). > > My concern is that it could be the start of a worrying trend. I would *far* > rather see Google put up tutorials and examples to help developers with > specific code aspects they have identified as a potential problem as opposed > to releasing whole apps to directly compete with community generated apps. > > Al. > > --- > > * Written an Android App? - List it at http://andappstore.com/ * > > ====== > Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the > company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, > 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. > > The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not > necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's > subsidiaries. > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *mike quinn > *Sent:* 09 April 2009 10:42 > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [android-discuss] Re: Google competing with devs... > > But what about the case of that developer that produced the podcast manger > type app. It was refused entry to the AppStore because it included > functionality that was similar to iTunes desktop software, so refused entry > due to features not even available on the iPhone. > > Was this because Apple had intentions to release similar functionality in > the future and therefore block any applications that will compete with their > current products or stuff they may do in the future? Sorry for going off > topic. > > Back to the point of the thread, taking Googles product out of the running > which of the other "5" products that do the same thing would you go for. Do > any of them have unique features that would make you want that particular > one over the rest? Would you choose Google's application over the others? > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I see that as the other way around; >> >> I fully agree that Apple don't allow apps which compete with their >> existing products, and that isn't good, but the point I'm making is that I >> can't think of the last time I heard a developer say "Apple copied my app >> *after* it had been listed on AppStore" when that app wasn't part of core >> phone functionality. >> >> I really don't see a password safe as a core part of 'phone functionality >> because it doesn't use any of the custom hardware found on the 'phone which >> is shown by the fact it needs no permissions to run. >> >> Al. >> >> --- >> >> * Written an Android App? - List it at http://andappstore.com/ * >> >> ====== >> Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the >> company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, >> 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. >> >> The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not >> necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's >> subsidiaries. >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *mike quinn >> *Sent:* 09 April 2009 10:05 >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* [android-discuss] Re: Google competing with devs... >> >> "One thing I give Apple a lot of respect for is that they don't produce >> apps >> to compete with the developers they are trying to encourage to use their >> platform" >> >> No they just dont let any applications through their review process that >> infringes on existing or future Apple released functionality. Ergo you dont >> see applications that compete with Apple because they never get released, so >> it looks like Apple dont produce applications that compete. >> >> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:01 AM, mike quinn <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> My personal view is that this kind of competition is a good thing, it >>> will hopefully make developers produce products that have unique selling >>> points and "look" professional. >>> >>> All things being equal though, in terms of functionality and look, I >>> would probably go with Google >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Andreas Kostyrka >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Am Thu, 9 Apr 2009 08:37:02 +0100 >>>> schrieb "Al Sutton" <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> What did you expect? And it's not exactly competing, it's open source, >>>> and so by definition more valueable, because people can check it's >>>> working. Closed-Source Crypto software is, by definition, fishy. >>>> >>>> Andreas >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2009/04/secrets-for-android.html >>>> > >>>> > And >>>> > >>>> > http://www.openintents.org/en/node/205 >>>> > (which was previously http://code.google.com/p/android-passwordsafe/) >>>> > >>>> > http://www.cyrket.com/package/com.splashidandroid >>>> > >>>> > http://www.cyrket.com/package/com.alienmanfc6.passwordvault >>>> > >>>> > http://www.cyrket.com/package/com.android.keepass >>>> > >>>> > It would seem that even products where Google don't have a current >>>> > equivalent product could be at risk of getting rolled on by the Google >>>> > machine. >>>> > >>>> > Al. >>>> > >>>> > --- >>>> > >>>> > * Written an Android App? - List it at http://andappstore.com/ * >>>> > >>>> > ====== >>>> > Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the >>>> > company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, >>>> > 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. >>>> > >>>> > The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not >>>> > necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's >>>> > subsidiaries. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
